Curing the north's ugly ills

By Wesley Aird

CHILD abuse and child neglect are unacceptable in any town or any suburb in the country. This is a fundamental tenet of society and comes before considerations of tradition, culture or politics.

The Federal Government's decision to intervene in Northern Territory indigenous communities can be seen as a response to an emergency.

The term "emergency" usually evokes images of natural phenomena, such as floods or cyclones. Both have the capacity to wreak havoc on hundreds or even thousands of people. We can't stop natural disasters from occurring and our efforts are aimed mostly at recovery after an unavoidable event.

Advertisement

Indigenous child abuse and neglect is wreaking havoc on the lives of thousands of families. It is a crisis of such magnitude that it warrants a reaction in terms of a national emergency response. However, this emergency is not like a natural disaster.

Here's a big difference: indigenous child abuse is an emergency that is continuing. It will occur across the country today and tomorrow and for some time to come. This is an inescapable and unacceptable truth. But it can be stopped, and action must be taken immediately. We have more than enough research and words to tell us what is needed.

On face value, the federal response seems heavy-handed and no doubt many in the Northern Territory, and many elsewhere, will question whether such a response is necessary. There can be no doubt about the extent of dysfunction in many indigenous communities and we have this regularly reinforced by stories of devastation on television and in the papers.

There is no doubt that indigenous affairs is a complex area that cannot be fixed by any one government department. The extent and complexity of the problem requires a forceful response. A drastic situation requires a drastic response.

Without doubt, Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough's response package contains a couple of contentious issues. Critics were quick to level accusations that the emergency response is over the top or patronising. Of course it won't fit everyone's political world view.

Perhaps a constructive way to view the emergency response is to determine what is an acceptable level of intervention. In other words, what would it take to make sure that indigenous children in remote communities enjoy the same security, health and schooling as children anywhere else in the country?

I expect the answer to this question requires some short-term trade-offs in both a political and personal sense. However, surely this is reasonable in order to reach the objective of ensuring each child can live in a safe environment. This is not some sort of special right, this is a basic entitlement taken for granted every day by just about every Australian.

You can't have it both ways. If you want to tackle such a substantial and complex problem then you must be, as the saying goes, "in for a penny, in for a pound". In my opinion, the response is appropriate for the problem.

It seems somehow odd to argue over land tenure or permits when the real objective is to instate a fundamental system of safety and order. It is important to get the priorities right.

In the short term, the focus should be on community order. At a later stage there will be time to return to other issues.

In despair we can ask how it came to this. Sadly, the answers can be found right across the country in political apathy and perverse policies. In every state and territory high-level reports commissioned by governments detail abhorrent stories of indigenous abuse and neglect. The recent Northern Territory report was just another in a series to be met by inaction. The Commonwealth is now acting because the Northern Territory failed to do so.

It is hoped the states will implement similar measures. Perhaps where a state is prepared to take action but is unsure of what to do, the Northern Territory model will show the way.

Although it seems the details are still being worked out, the Commonwealth clearly intends to assume various functions currently undertaken by the Northern Territory Government.

Without a doubt the emergency response is a setback for self-administration for the territory, just as it is also a setback for self-determination for indigenous people. The flip-side is that it is a terrific win for the thousands who have endured so much. Maybe at last they can look forward to a safe future. That's not too much to ask.

Wesley Aird is a member of the National Indigenous Council, the Gold Coast Native Title Group and the Bennelong Society board.